English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

. Effective and efficient communication of expected avalanche conditions and danger to the public is of great importance, especially where the primary audience of forecasts are recreational, non-expert users. In Europe, avalanche danger is communicated using a pyramid, starting with ordinal levels of avalanche danger and progressing through avalanche-prone locations and avalanche problems to a danger description. In many forecast products, information relating to the trigger required to release an avalanche, the frequency or number of potential triggering spots, and the expected avalanche size is described exclusively in a textual danger description. These danger descriptions are, however, the least standardized part of avalanche forecasts. Taking the perspective of the avalanche forecaster and focusing particularly on terms describing these three characterizing elements of avalanche danger, we investigate first which meaning forecasters assign to the text characterizing these elements and second how these descriptions relate to the forecast danger level. We analyzed almost 6000 danger descriptions in avalanche forecasts published in Switzerland and written using a structured catalogue of phrases with a limited number of words. Words and phrases representing information describing these three elements were labeled and assigned to ordinal classes by Swiss avalanche forecasters. These classes were then related to avalanche danger. Forecasters were relatively consistent in assigning labels to words and phrases with Cohen's kappa values ranging from 0.64 to 0.87. Avalanche danger levels were also described consistently using words and phrases, with for example avalanche size classes increasing monotonically with avalanche danger. However, especially for danger level 2 (moderate), information about key elements of avalanche danger, for instance the frequency or number of potential triggering spots, was often missing in danger descriptions. In general, the analysis of the danger descriptions showed that extreme conditions are described in more detail than intermediate values, highlighting the difficulty of communicating conditions that are neither rare nor frequent or neither small nor large. Our results provide data-driven insights that could be used to refine the ways in which avalanche danger could be communicated. Furthermore, through the perspective of the semiotic triangle, relating a referent (the avalanche situation) through thought (the processing process) to symbols (the textual danger description), we provide an alternative starting point for future studies of avalanche forecast consistency and communication.

How is avalanche danger described in textual descriptions in avalanche forecasts in Switzerland? Consistency between forecasters and avalanche danger